Prudent Rulings On Life And Death

The Supreme Court took on two of the most sensitive, hotly disputed matters in the public arena, and gingerly-with almost palpable discomfort-attached a few caveats and passed them back to the states.

The court`s decisions on laws requiring parental notification of a minor`s abortion and on a right-to-die case will not wholly satisfy any of the activists involved. In each case, the majority of the justices prudently chose to limit the role of the courts. They preferred to let the people sort through the conflicting interests and related scientific advances, and, via their elected representatives, attempt to resolve them within the loose guidelines laid out in Monday`s rulings.

The abortion decisions don`t necessarily foretell an overturn of Roe v. Wade. But, as in the Webster case a year ago that upheld a state`s right to place some restrictions on abortion, they do indicate that the majority of the justices-like the majority of the American people-are uncomfortable with the breadth of Roe`s mandated permissiveness.

The court upheld an Ohio law requiring unmarried young women under 18 to either notify one parent or get a judge`s permission before getting an abortion. Most states require similar notification before a minor can get medical treatment, although exceptions are often made for treatment of venereal disease. Abortion is, after all, a surgical procedure, so parental notification surely seems reasonable-particularly because the law provides only for notification, not permission, and it does have the judicial escape clause.

The Minnesota law is less defensible. It requires notification of both parents, a provision inserted mainly to harass the pregnant teenager; half of the minors seeking abortions in Minnesota live with only one parent. What kept this law from being tossed out was a judicial escape clause similar to Ohio`s. In the few states that already enforce parental notification, counselors usually assure that the judicial option works. Almost none of those requests is denied.

The court`s first venture into the right-to-die issue is a blow to the parents of Nancy Cruzan, comatose for more than seven years. It upheld Missouri`s refusal to let them discontinue the tubes providing her with food and water because, according to the state, they did not show convincingly that this would be her wish.

But the justices did endorse a constitutional right to avoid unwanted medical treatment. Their ruling should encourage the use-even by young people- of living wills and other mechanisms to make known one`s feelings about life-sustaining treatment.

And by letting states decide how they want to handle care of comatose patients who have not indicated their preferences, the ruling should give impetus to legislation like the merciful right-to-die bill stymied in the Illinois General Assembly. It set guidelines for empowering family surrogates to make decisions for dying patients, and would be compatible with Monday`s court ruling.